- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mnkherjee, J. This writ petition is of 1984 origin. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally dis posed of, in accordance with rules of the Court.
(2.) THE petitioner, Ram Sajiwan, was posted at Banda as a Police Cons table at the relevant point of time. On the basis of a complaint made against the petitioner (or theft of one bed-sheet, three Sarees, two petticoats, one blouse etc. , amounting to Rs. 285 from the box of his colleague, the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 15-2-1980, which is contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of termination dated 15-2-1980 has been passed by the respon dent No. 3 on the basis of a complaint, and, therefore, it contains a stigma. Thus, without holding prior disciplinary proceedings, order of termination cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further contended that the respon dent No. 2, namely, U. P. Public Service Tribunal, has not considered the case of the petitioner in the light of aforesaid fact, and therefore, the order passed by it, dated 28-8-1982, is also liable to be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel drew my attention to the impugned order of termination dated 15-2-1980 and contended that it is an order of termina tion simpliciter and this court, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, would not like to interfere with such an order.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the impugned orders, I am of the view that there is no force in the submission of learned Standing Counsel. The law, on this point, has under gone a drastic change since 1968. This court is not unaware of a decision in the Manager, Government Branch Press and another v. D. B. Belliappa, (1979) 1 SCC 477, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows : "-----Where a charge of unfair discrimination is levelled with specifici ty, or improper motives are imputed to the authority making the impugned order of termination of service, it is the duty of the authority to dispel that charge by disclosing to the court the reason or motive which impelled it to take the impugned action. Excepting in cases analogous to those under Article 311 (2), provi so (c) the authority cannot withhold such information from court and plead that the order was purely administrative passed in the exercise of administrative discretion and not judicial. Fairness, founded on reason is to the essence of Articles 14 and 16 (1 ). ";